I don't know how these ridiculous rumors about VX keep getting started.

I vote FUD again. Competitors have good reason to feel threatened.

Well, if the cowards running Virgin America would just release their DOT data as legally required, these silly rumours would never acquire any legs now, would they?

We don't have to release the same data every other US-based airline has to release.

Where do these ridiculous rumours orginate and why do they persist?

Irony, to the white courtesy phone, please.

1) VX doesn't care about these rumors. Let the other carriers think that they have 30% completion. Great.

2) They made a legal argument that they don't have to release the data, and they were allowed to not release the data during the time it was decided. They haven't done anything wrong.

I can't imagine why companies that fought tooth and nail to keep VX from even being able to operate in the US would spread false rumors about them.

Just as its competitors were able to fight tooth and nail(legally) to challenge VX's investment balance in its application for operating certification, VX has the right to challenge the DOT legally on its Form 41 disclosure.

The competitors relinquished their fight once the DOT decided that VX had complied with ownership regulations. It seems more and more apparent that VX will have to relinquish their fight soon. Unless, of course, they want to go a step further than ther competition did and take the issue outside the the DOT's scope...

And if they lost this argument, they still wouldn't. Spirit complies and they remain privately held. VX can rest in the fact that much is still not known about Spirit's financial performance because they are privately held.

Uhh, I would lean towards the "or". Any airline that is just starting out, especially in this environment is not going to show much in the way of effeciency given the huge start-up costs involved with starting an airline. If that said airline is forced to offer cut-throat fares for an extended period of time, particularly in a trans-con market, in order to gain a decent market share(which we can't even assume, given that the information is not available) then the issue becomes how long can they keep it up.

They seem to be burning through cash, seeking additional capital in order to grow their network, hoping that they will be able to get themselves established with a strong US brand and presence before the well dries up. Will they be able to make it on their own? That question is up in the air, but I wonder what that information would add to the discussion if it were in the public forum. I can completely understand why VX wouldn't want it out there, especially if the news isn't so good.

Yet they are still adding new trans-con services(JFK-LAS). Would they have been better off starting as B6 did with an emphasis on a particular coast of the US? Even though WN is HUGE in the West, certainly the VX product is distinguishable and could probably find a loyal following in the big media-savvy West. Instead, they seem to want to go for everything all at the same time and are stretching themselves thin.

However, not that thin. A monthly completion factor of 30-40% would, not uncoincedentally, also be the same month the airline ceased operations.

I similarly doubt the load factor information, even during the summer months, due to the fares that VX continues to offer for trans-con travel.

Slight correction, I failed to add a part to the 30-40% completion factor...it was in certain segments that this percentage was the case, mainly short-haul.

Sorry if I caused a rukus!

And for the record: I am personally not in any way shape or form "worried" about VX. They have a niche market and they know that, so I say bring it on! I have been at 2 other legacy carriers (NW, UA) and I can safely say that they (UA, NW) will never figure out what their market is like VX has. They are trying so hard to be a domesti(cated) international airline that they cut their nose off despite their face EVERY time they turn around.

Im happy of VX makes it, and I'll be sad if they dont. But they do need to play fair ball if they are going to go up against anyone, be it WN, US, DL, NW or whomever. Like some other FT'ers have said, it makes people wonder whats being hidden from the public by not disclosing the DOT numbers, thats all Im sayin'!

Bzzt. Try again.

Which VX segments have 30-40% completion factor? Where do these numbers come from? And why do we not already know about it? AFAIK - VX has great on-time and completion records.

... are you sure you didn't read the 'UA' column by mistake ? They are always late or canceled.

VX has started to diversify their network by adding more shorter stage flights. However they haven't reduced transcon one bit. In general, California transcon is a summer business; VX hasn't reduced their flying in the fall except to shift a single flight to JFK-LAS.

I think they would have a much easier time making a profit in JFK-MIA than ANY transcon market. However getting the slots to run enough frequency will be difficult.


A quick look at your posting history is interesting. It appears you were once an UA FA. It also appears that VX hired you to be an FA and that you are now a WN operations agent.

Do you have a bone to pick with VX? What is the "source" of your info?

It seems to me that instead of cutting transcons, since VX is planning on expansion over the next few years anyway, you would probably just change the mix of where you expand to in order to put in more non-transcon flights. That's probably one of the reasons why SEA was an expansion target back in March, and a lot of people went "Huh? Aren't they supposed to be a transcon-oriented airline with all the amenities they offered?".

That's why I would expect to see routes like JFK-MIA at some point soon. If they have to reduce transcon frequencies... I guess I could see that. It also strikes me that a lot of their next markets are aimed at UA/AA (ORD, MIA, maybe DFW and DEN)... which are good airlines for them to gun for, IMO.

Even before the airline launched, they announced that SEA would be one of the first cities added, and articles all anticipated it being the first. So there was no surprise there.

I still think JFK-South Florida would not be a smart move. Going against B6 head-on doesn't make sense to me. They offer similar products, and B6 has a coach product that many consider better. Clearly, customer service and treatment of customers lately favors VX, but legroom on B6 is unbeatable. I would love it because of the first class, but that's only 8 seats. SFO-South Florida and LAX-South Florida are the winners.

Even with $130/bbl oil? I think the argument is that transcon service is going to suck out a lot of cash in this environment, given the need to run loss leaders at the beginning + the inability to turn plane seats around that you get on shorter flights, and that it might be best to expand using shorter distance flights- since ORD is apparently the next market, that sort of confirms that ( I'd assume JFK-ORD/SFO-LAX-ORD would be the service at the start).

Yeah, JFK-MIA DOES compete (sorta) with Jet Blue... but that particular route is an AA route between two major AA hubs, no? That's the common factor I see in the next few rumored markets (ORD, MIA, DFW, DEN)- all AA or UA fortresses. While AA and UA are retrenching, seems like a good time to take them on.

Of course, I don't do revenue management for airlines, so all of my expertise is coming straight out of my nether regions.

Does PAXstats have the information aggregated for VX's operations?